Who needs to share?

Proportional representation opponent Bill Tieleman is back - with his dire warnings about what electoral reform would mean for British Columbia. In his latest piece for Vancouver 24 hours, Tieleman is eager to protect us from the continuation of such disturbing political activities as:

Cooperation.

And compromise.

Tieleman points out that in last week's budget, not every BC-NDP campaign promise has materialized immediately! Tieleman conclusion? A "hostage taking" is afoot!

Two parties (BC NDP and BC Greens), with 57% of the vote between them, have a cooperation agreement to work together on policies where they had a similar platform and common goals. Their transparent agreement is outlined here.

If you listen to Tieleman, this sort of ongoing policy cooperation between parties should be diagnosed as a near-emergency.

Because a party with 40% of the vote should be able to do whatever the hell it wants, right? Over the last 12 years, a single party (the BC Liberals) had 100% of the policy-making power, based on about 44% of the vote. MLAs representing the majority of BC voters were basically powerless spectators. We saw the same thing federally with the Harper Conservatives (39.6% of the vote) and now with the Trudeau Liberals (39.5% of the vote). But in BC, the BC-NDP - who obtained 40% of the vote - must now secure the support of enough MLAs for each policy to genuinely represent a majority of British Columbians. To make this more efficient and inclusive, they're developing policies in collaboration with another party.

Sounds like a democracy to me.

In fact, this is how most modern democracies work. Most OECD countries with parliamentary democracies like ours are governed by more than one party, with formal cooperation agreements, usually written ones. But Tieleman claims the BC NDP are being held "hostage" by the BC Greens.

Let's look more closely at one example of what Tieleman is talking about: The as-yet-unfulfilled NDP promise of $10/day daycare. "And leave it to Weaver’s veto that B.C.’s budget update had no money for either promise that helped the NDP defeat a B.C. Liberal government that neglected both families with young children and renters."

The suggestion here is that the BC Greens have somehow held up or plan to pull the plug on affordable daycare. Oh, the poor little children and parents - the victims of political cooperation that we just can't allow to continue, or so the story goes. What's the reality? In June, 2017, John Horgan said that the first step in the NDP childcare plan was creating more spaces. He went on to say: "We plan by year five to have 66,000 new spaces and the $10-a-day plan..." He didn't say by week nine of my new government we'll have $10-a-day childcare.

In this budget, just as promised in June, Horgan took the first step and announced 20 million dollars for 4,100 new childcare spaces.

But listening to Tieleman, you'd think that the Big Bad Greens were holding up the daycare plan. In case you're under any misconception that the Greens don't support childcare and intend to block such a plan, what did the Greens campaign on? Free childcare for kids 3 and under, and 25 hours a week free Early Childhood Education for over 3 for everyone. Free. Not $10/day. As the smaller party in the agreement, they probably won't get "free", but it's not like the Greens want to hold up affordable childcare.

The NDP/Green supply and confidence commits both parties to:

Invest in childcare and early childhood education to improve quality, expand spaces, increase affordability and ensure childcare is accessible for all families, with a focus on early childhood education.

Here's what's ahead - in Green Party leader Andrew Weaver's words from his latest email: Universal childcare with a focus on early childhood education Shared platform commitment with some differences to be worked out Coming in February budget

Of course Tieleman knows a plan for affordable childcare is coming - probably a plan with even more buy-in from citizens and childcare advocates than what the NDP campaigned on. Tieleman is out to do one thing: Scare people about proportional representation. As research on past referendums has shown, the opponents focus on conjuring up the scariest imaginary scenario a change might produce, and the no side is more likely to lie. Tieleman's long-standing campaign against proportional representation - power sharing - cuts across all PR systems. As he said in a column a few years ago, PR is for "losers." In 2009, he succeeded in convincing many people that the specific proportional system recommended by the British Columbia Citizens Assembly - Single Transferable Vote (PR-STV) - was just too "complicated." Today, he quotes the NDP's favourite proportional system, Mixed Member Proportional, as - you guessed it - "fiendishly complicated." 1,2,3... Two X's... It's all too complicated when you don't want to share. Bill Tieleman and Justin Trudeau are of exactly the same mindset about power. They want their party to have it - all of it. The millions of voters who elect no-one each election - voters for their party and other parties - just don't matter in their winning scheme. Who cares if their own voters and their policy priorities are shut out of government entirely for several terms or even decades on end? Because when their party finally does form government with 40% of the vote - even if it's only for four years - they'll have ALL THE POWER! Victory at last!

Most voters do not think this way. Fact is, any survey will tell you that most voters want to see parties working together. Given a choice, we're not going to give just one party the keys very often. And that's why Tieleman and Trudeau must make sure proportional representation never comes to Canada.

As Dennis Pilon so aptly put it, for many politician and party operatives, the "entire electoral reform debate is based on a fear of voters."

Giving each of us a say is exactly what they're afraid of.